Inhaled Budesonide in the Treatment of Early COVID-19 Illness: A Randomised Controlled Trial (preprint)

Background: Multiple early hospital cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids was responsible for this finding and tested if inhaled glucorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19 illness. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open label trial of inhaled budesonide, compared to usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild Covid-19 symptoms. The primary end point was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, emergency department assessment or hospitalisation. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. Results: 146 patients underwent randomisation. For the per protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in 10 participants and 1 participant in the usual care and budesonide arms respectively (difference in proportion 0.131, p=0.004). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was 8. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide arm compared to the usual care arm (median of 7 days versus 8 days respectively, logrank test p=0.007). Proportion of days with a fever and proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide arm. Fewer participants randomised to budesonide had persistent symptoms at day 14 and day 28 compared to participants receiving usual care. Conclusion: Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery following early COVID-19 infection.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04416399Funding: Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZenecaDeclaration of Interests: Dr. Ramakrishnan reports grants and non-financial support from Oxford Respiratory NIHR BRC, during the conduct of the study; non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Australian Government Research Training Program, outside the submitted work; . Dr. Nicolau has nothing to disclose. Mrs Langford has nothing to disclose. Mr. Mahdi has nothing to disclose. Mrs Helen Jeffers reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; . Miss Mwasuku has nothing to disclose. Mrs Krassowska has nothing to disclose. Dr Fox has nothing to disclose. Dr Binnian has nothing to disclose. Dr Glover has nothing to disclose. Dr Bright has nothing to disclose. Dr. Butler reports grants from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and various public funding bodies for research related to diagnostics and infections. He has revcied personal fees from Pfizer INC, Roche Diagnostics, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cane has nothing to disclose. Mr. Halner has nothing to disclose. Dr. Matthews has nothing to disclose. Dr. Donnelly reports grants from AstraZeneca, from Boehringer-Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; . Dr. Simpson has nothing to disclose. Dr Baker has nothing to disclose. Dr. Fadai has nothing to disclose. Dr. Peterson reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; . Mr. Bengtsson reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; Dr. Barnes reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Teva, personal fees from Covis, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Russell reports grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi UK, personal fees from Glaxo-SmithKline, during the conduct of the study; . Dr. Bafadhel reports grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, other from Albus Health, ProAxsis, outside the submitted work; .Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was sponsored by the University of Oxford, and was approved by the Fulham London Research Ethics Committee (20/HRA/2531) and the National Health Research Authority.The ethical approval number is 20/HRA/2531.

Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 illness: a randomised controlled trial (preprint)

BackgroundMultiple early hospital cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids was responsible for this finding and tested if inhaled glucorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19 illness. MethodsWe conducted a randomised, open label trial of inhaled budesonide, compared to usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild Covid-19 symptoms. The primary end point was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, emergency department assessment or hospitalisation. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. Results146 patients underwent randomisation. For the per protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in 10 participants and 1 participant in the usual care and budesonide arms respectively (difference in proportion 0.131, p=0.004). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was 8. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide arm compared to the usual care arm (median of 7 days versus 8 days respectively, logrank test p=0.007). Proportion of days with a fever and proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide arm. Fewer participants randomised to budesonide had persistent symptoms at day 14 and day 28 compared to participants receiving usual care. ConclusionEarly administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery following early COVID-19 infection. (Funded by Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04416399) Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe majority of interventions studied for the COVID-19 pandemic are focused on hospitalised patients. Widely available and broadly relevant interventions for mild COVID-19 are urgently needed. Added value of this studyIn this open label randomised controlled trial, inhaled budesonide, when given to adults with early COVID-19 illness, reduces the likelihood of requiring urgent care, emergency department consultation or hospitalisation. There was also a quicker resolution of fever, a known poor prognostic marker in COVID-19 and a faster self-reported and questionnaire reported symptom resolution. There were fewer participants with persistent COVID-19 symptoms at 14 and 28 days after budesonide therapy compared to usual care. Implications of all the available evidenceThe STOIC trial potentially provides the first easily accessible effective intervention in early COVID-19. By assessing health care resource utilisation, the study provides an exciting option to help with the worldwide pressure on health care systems due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from this study also suggests a potentially effective treatment to prevent the long term morbidity from persistent COVID-19 symptoms.

PRINCIPLE trial demonstrates scope for in-pandemic improvement in primary care antibiotic stewardship (preprint)

Background The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE) trial has provided in-pandemic evidence of what does not work in the early primary care management of coronavirus-2019 disease (COVID-19). PRINCIPLE’s first finding was that azithromycin and doxycycline were not effective. Aim To explore the extent to which azithromycin and doxycycline were being used in-pandemic, and the scope for trial findings impacting on practice. Design and Setting We compared crude rates of prescribing and respiratory tract infections (RTI) in 2020, the pandemic year, with 2019, using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). Methods We used a negative binomial model including age-band, gender, socioeconomic status, and NHS region to compare azithromycin and doxycycline lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), and influenza-like-illness (ILI) in 2020 with 2019; reporting incident rate ratios (IRR) between years and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results Azithromycin prescriptions increased 7% in 2020 compared to 2019, whereas doxycycline decreased by 7%. Concurrently, LRTI and URTI incidence fell by over half (58.3% and 54.4% respectively) while ILI rose slightly (6.4%). The overall percentage of RTI prescribed azithromycin rose by 42.1% between 2019 and 2020, doxycycline increased by 33%. Our adjusted IRR showed azithromycin prescribing was 22% higher in 2020 (IRR=1.22, 95%CI:1.19-1.26, p<0.0001), for every unit rise in confirmed COVID there was an associated 3% rise in prescription (IRR=1.026, 95%CI 1.024-1.0285, p<0.0001); whereas these measures were static for doxycycline. Conclusion PRINCIPLE trial flags scope for improvement in antimicrobial stewardship.

Development and evaluation of rapid data-enabled access to routine clinical information to enhance early recruitment to the national clinical platform trial of COVID-19 community treatments (preprint)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment. This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within 24-48 hours of their test result. MethodsA multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (within 24-48 hours of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology. ResultsPrior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1,013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2,802 recruits by 20th December 2020. While procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2,639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached. ConclusionsThis paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness. This approach increased recruitment, and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions. Trial registrationPRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research. EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958